The amazing rise of the angry little doctor.

[M]

I never condemned demonstations, people of any political persuasion to have a right to campaign for what they believe in. By this I of course mean nonviolent demonstrations, which the anti-Iraq demonstations were. I do think the demonstrators were wrong, but not illegal.

I have a problem to some degree with the settlements too, especialy the ones that are practically uninhabited or deep w/in the W. Bank. I do think eventually there will be boundary revisions before a Palestinian state is formed.

The reason there is no moral equality apart from the Arafat is a tyrannical thug issue, is that the PLO goes straight for civilians and the Israelis try to uproot terrorists. Unavoidable civilian casualties is not the same as genocide.

[M]

As to the question why Iraq and not another nation if the big issue was democracy, there are several reasons I can think of:

A possible domino effect, spreading reform across the region.

Iraq was a pariah with seventeen UN resolutions like a sword of Damocles over its head. It was thought this would make it easy to garner international support.

An easy one to take out, weakened by years of sanctions.

Iraq, more than, ecp. Cuba, posed a direct threat to some of our allies: the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel (to an extent).

Also, Cuba has strong domestic reform movements led by Oswaldo Paya, and will likely become a democracy after Castro's death, a la Spain. No such viable movements were present inside of Iraq.

Also, thank you Ryan for sticking up for me! I never intended the post to be nonpartisan, if I did you might have a solid beef with me. There was a bit of my own wry sense of humor in there, coupled with my somewhat biased take on historical events. Nevertheless, It was not a personal attack against anyone, including herr realpolitik, nor did it contain any intentional falsehoods.

Another example of French anti-Semitism: after Mohammed Mahathir's despicable rant, Italy, as rotating head of the EU, intended to condemn the speech. Chirac vetoed that, too.

[Sibboleth]

I had had a long day and he was beginning to annoy me.
The title of this thread flipped it.

[NorthernDog]

I had had a long day and he was beginning to annoy me.
The title of this thread flipped it.

The title is "over the top" but let's get back to discussing why Dean is the front runner.  Are people attracted to his policies, his persona, or is it the anti-war stance?  The other Democrat candidates don't differ much on policies and most of them are "angry" so I'm guessing it's his persona-the way he rolls up his sleeves and makes off the cuff barbs.  He's not tentative or cautious in advocating himself.  Is this what Democrats find attractive in 2004?

[agcatter]

He is leading because he hates Bush the most.  The faithful love that.  I love it too.  Go Dean.  Dean could win the general election too if just wasn't for all those Republicans and pesky swing voters.

[Nym90]

Dean is doing well because he is providing the best contrast between himself and Bush. Democrats did not provide enough contrast with Bush in 2002. More contrast, however, does not mean more liberal. Dean is not on the balance any more liberal than most of the other Dem contenders. However, he is emphasizing clear differences with Bush and that is what Democrats must do to win. We can't win by being conservative, because the  Republicans are a lot better than we are at being conservative. Democrats have to be themselves, and stand up for their beliefs. Again, this does not mean becoming more liberal, you can be moderate and still have strong convictions and still emphasize the differences, this is what Clinton did very successfully. Dean right now is doing the best job of emphasizing key differences and standing up for his convictions.

[DarthKosh]

Dean is doing well because he is providing the best contrast between himself and Bush. Democrats did not provide enough contrast with Bush in 2002. More contrast, however, does not mean more liberal. Dean is not on the balance any more liberal than most of the other Dem contenders. However, he is emphasizing clear differences with Bush and that is what Democrats must do to win. We can't win by being conservative, because the  Republicans are a lot better than we are at being conservative. Democrats have to be themselves, and stand up for their beliefs. Again, this does not mean becoming more liberal, you can be moderate and still have strong convictions and still emphasize the differences, this is what Clinton did very successfully. Dean right now is doing the best job of emphasizing key differences and standing up for his convictions.

I think reason why Dean is doing well in the primaries is that he is exciting the ultra-liberals that vote in the primaries.

[Ryan]

Also, thank you Ryan for sticking up for me! I never intended the post to be nonpartisan, if I did you might have a solid beef with me. There was a bit of my own wry sense of humor in there, coupled with my somewhat biased take on historical events. Nevertheless, It was not a personal attack against anyone, including herr realpolitik, nor did it contain any intentional falsehoods.

No probs, I'd stick up for any member of the forum when the assault is undeserved, including Realpolitik

Just for the record I like your posts. They are pretty funny and very well written (as to use of language and expression)
As you say you dont make any attempts to be non-partisan  as most of us TRY to do and as you also have noted your language isnt the gentlest possible.
Given that this is a non-partisan forum maybe you could work on that without losing the essence of your input. Any posts which are solidly partisan you might want to put in General discussion where I have set up a thread precisely for people to do just that. (Democrats and Republicans-A broad Discussion. )- for specific topics you can set up separate threads which people dont have to open is they dont want to.

Still I can affirm that you have not broken any rules of common decency like using invective or swear words.

Nothing you have said nor the tone is unprecedented on this forum. Several others - (majority liberal-democrat) have done the same without exciting many heated replies from Reps and not a single reprimand from fellow lib Dems

Anyways I personally welcome all points of view and ideologies; gives me something more to learn

[Beet]

As to the question why Iraq and not another nation if the big issue was democracy, there are several reasons I can think of:

A possible domino effect, spreading reform across the region.

Ok, just becaue you can think of them it doesn't mean that's the story Bush told, or why he decided to lead the country into it.

Bush: "Overthrowing the Saddam regime will also have a domino effect, leading to the fall of the Syrian, Iranian, and hopefully Jordanian and Saudi governments."

Nope, he didn't say that. Nor is he particularly putting much pressure on the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, or the Pakistanis.

Iraq was a pariah with seventeen UN resolutions like a sword of Damocles over its head. It was thought this would make it easy to garner international support.

Bush: "I picked Iraq to invade because that's what the rest of the Security Council wanted."

Nope.

An easy one to take out, weakened by years of sanctions.

Bush: "Iraq is the easiest country in the world to attack."

Nope.

Iraq, more than, ecp. Cuba, posed a direct threat to some of our allies: the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel (to an extent).

Bush: "Iraq poses a threat to a lot of our allies in the Middle East."

Now here's something he did try to say. However it wasn't true. It certainly wasn't any more true in the summer of 2002 than it was in the fall of 2001 or earlier.

Also, Cuba has strong domestic reform movements led by Oswaldo Paya, and will likely become a democracy after Castro's death, a la Spain. No such viable movements were present inside of Iraq.

Bush: "I have examined all of the world's dictatorships and concluded that Iraq's is the only one that will not fall when the dictator dies. And since Mr. Paya wants us to lift sanctions on Cuba, we will."

Nope again.

[M]

Thanks, all. Especially realpolitik, that was very decent of you to explain yourself. I for one will make a good faith effort to avoid being quite so upsetting to you again. (I won't switch parties though!)

Hmm... beet, you're a funny guy! But I think if you want the main reason Bush picked Iraq, if you accept at least for the sake of argument that Bush was mostly trying for a "when you can, you should", is that Iraq is in the MidEast, a region that definitely needs change. While we differ greatly on the methods for change, I think nearly every American would agree that the current situation is unstable, dangerous, and just plain untenable.

[Ryan]

LOL not to mention he likes Margaret Thatcher. ;)I saw that thread just after I posted and said "Ah! this is whats got me ole pal Realpolitik all het up"

Anyways, alls well that ends well, look forward to this discussion progressing

I had had a long day and he was beginning to annoy me.
The title of this thread flipped it.